Scoring:
Not significant;
Low Significance;
Moderate Significance;
Medium-high Significance;
High Significance;
Exceptional Significance
Evidence A: All four proposed sites by COICA are highly significant. They are located in 5 countries.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
>50 t/ha - Low;
50 - 100 t/ha - Moderate;
>100 t/ha - High
Evidence A: Yes, all the areas are significant for climate mitigation as they span several ecosystems east of the Andes.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
IPLC governance (rights and institutions) not evident;
Project areas are marginally under IPLC governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are partially under IPLC systems of governance (spatially or politically);
Project areas are largely under IPLC governance, but IPLC rights and/or institutions face significant constraints;
Project areas are held and managed under IPLC governance systems, with some limitations;
Project areas are held and managed under strong and active IPLC governance systems
Evidence A: Most of the areas are under indigenous management. There are other areas that are under the supervision of government agencies.
Evidence B:The project proposed 4 blocks (plus 2 other for exchanges). And the delimitation is not so clear. Apparently, most of the more fine focused areas (within the 4 larger blocks) are under IP management, but not all are officially recognised.
Scoring:
No explanation given of unique significance to IPLCs;
Significance of site(s) vaguely described;
Unique significance of project site(s) clearly explained
Evidence A: The cultural significance is implied as the project includes several indigenous peoples in 5 countries.
Evidence B:The text does not. But we know they are.
Scoring:
No evident threats;
Low threats;
Moderate threats;
Medium-high threats;
High threats;
Requires urgent action
Evidence A: The threats listed include: illegal mining, construction of roads, oil and gas exploration, and deforestation for agribusiness.
Evidence B:Not homogenous (obviously).
Scoring:
Legal and policy frameworks in project areas undermine IPLC governance (either actively or through absence);
Legal and policy frameworks recognize limited rights for IPLCs over their lands and/or resources;
Legal and policy frameworks recognize rights over lands and resources but with constraints (e.g., lack implementing regulations);
Legal and policy frameworks actively promote the recognition of IPLC governance
Evidence A: The project includes 5 countries that have different laws but they all need to be enforced. There is room for improvement.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
National or sub-national governments are actively opposed to IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have recognized the importance of IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments have implemented some support for IPLC-led conservation;
National or sub-national governments are actively engaged in the promotion of IPLC rights and IPLC-led conservation
Evidence A: Yes, in some countries.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No IPLC-led conservation initiatives have been implemented;
Few IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented in pilot stages only;
Some IPLC-led conservation projects have been implemented beyond pilot stages;
Relevant IPLC-led conservation projects have been well established for many years
Evidence A: This is a broad project and some areas have had different trajectories with different degree of success.
Evidence B:In some cases more than others.
Scoring:
Few to no complementary projects/investment;
Complementary projects/investments are small, or are tangentially related to project goals;
Complementary Projects/investments align strongly with project goals and investments are substantial
Evidence A: Yes, there are other projects that could complement this one.
Evidence B:Probably there are more, but the proposal text is not enough convincing.
Scoring:
Weakly aligned;
Partially aligned;
Well aligned;
Exceptionally well aligned
Evidence A: Yes, the text shows alignment with ICI.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
The objectives and approach for this project lack clarity and cohesion, and/or do not appear to be realistic for the context;
Activities & results defined but logic (Theory of Change) is incomplete;
Activities and results are well-defined and cohesive but some aspects require clarification;
The project has clear objectives and a cohesive approach with relevant activities for the context and timeline
Evidence A: In general, the three objectives are sensible but lack detail. The areas of work are environmental (creation of conservation areas), economic (providing economic alternatives through value chains) and social (strengthening indigenous institutions)
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Objectives and activities do not clearly address identified threats and opportunities;
Contributions to addressing the threats and opportunities are low;
Contributions to addressing threats and enabling conditions are slightly over-ambitious;
The impact on threats and enabling conditions can be realistically accomplished and are sufficiently ambitious for the projects' context
Evidence A: The project could benefit of tightening the objectives and expected results to deliver more impact.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Activities/results not aligned with EoI range of investment;
Activities/results Partially aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Well aligned with EoI range of investment ;
Activities/results Exceptionally well aligned with EoI range of investment
Evidence A: It really depends. The three objectives are broad and ambitious and the funds would have to be spread out in at least 4 regions. There may not be enough resources to cover everything.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None;
Small;
Moderate;
Significant
Evidence A: The project states that WWF and another organizations could provide co-funding.
Evidence B:There probably are, but the proposal does not let it clear.
Scoring:
Not provided;
Very Low (below 10,000 Ha);
Moderate (between 100,000 - 500,000 Ha);
High (between 500,000 - 1,000,000 Ha);
Very high above 1,000,000 Ha
Evidence A: If successful, this project would cover a large chunk of the Amazon region.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No provided cultural or livelihood indicators for the project;
Indicators proposed but are not clearly aligned with project goals;
Indicators proposed and are moderately aligned with project goals;
Additional cultural and/or livelihood indicators clearly derive from project goals
Evidence A: The project needs more detail in this regard.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Vision for long-term sustainability not provided;
This project does not seem to have a clear long-term impact;
This project will create medium-term benefits for biodiversity and IPLC governance, which future funding will hopefully build upon;
This project will ensure long-term benefits to biodiversity and IPLC systems of governance
Evidence A: The project needs more detail.
Evidence B:The project proposal is not clear enough and it includes too many too large areas to the vision be consistently well established.
Scoring:
Contributions not provided;
The project is weakly related to either national priorities;
The project appears to be tangentially related to national priorities;
The proposal reflects an understanding of the national policy priorities and clearly positions the project in relation to those priorities
Evidence A: There is a reference to these targets and they are different in each country. Needs more detail.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Gender mainstreaming approach is absent;
Gender mainstreaming approach is weak;
Gender mainstreaming approach is moderately thought through (if there are a few activities as 'add ons');
Significant and well-thought through approach to gender mainstreaming
Evidence A: The project provides the right statements on gender without much depth.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Low demonstrated potential;
Moderate demonstrated potential;
Medium-high demonstrated potential;
High demonstrated potential;
Exceptional demonstrated potential
Evidence A: There are some projects that COICA has carried out in the past that could be the basis for specific targeted activities that can help the work to scale up.
Evidence B:As the proposal addresses areas of mutiple countries (each of the 4 main blocks are multicountries) is very interesting. Also, some challenges and some threats are approached in a very interesting way (as if it was possible to have a general IP approach in the Amazon to face gold mining or to self-define areas or to define zones in their territories etc.)
Scoring:
IPLC appear to be beneficiaries only;
Combination/partnership of IPLC organizations and NGOs, and plans to build IPLC capacity over the project term are clear;
IPLC-led approach, NGOs in more limited, defined roles (such as fiduciary);
Fully IPLC composed and led approach
Evidence A: COICA is an organization that represent indigenous groups and federations.
Evidence B:(Nevertheless, considering the scope of COICA, it is an IP organisation possibly at 5th of 5th level with strong difficulties to reach and represent all the grassroots IP associations and all IP communities.)
Scoring:
None demonstrated;
Limited demonstration of relevant on-ground leadership;
Demonstrated on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work;
Exceptional and long-standing on-ground leadership relevant to the proposed work
Evidence A: COICA has a long history of working on sustainable development and supporting community conservation.
Evidence B:In part of the areas, if in good combination with lower level indigenous peoples organisations.
Scoring:
No partners defined;
No IPLC partners identified;
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners but without clear scope (roles in project design or governance);
IPLC organizations are listed as implementing partners with clear roles (in project design or governance);
Strong IPLC partnerships that play a central role in design, governance, and implementation of the project;
Strong IPLC partnerships have a central role in design, governance and implementation of the project and linkages with national or regional IPO networks
Evidence A: COICA has an important presence in the region and has established strong partnerships with different kinds of organizations.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
No skills demonstrated;
The skills and experiences outlined have little or no relation to the project activities;
There is some lack of clarity or some gaps in the capacities necessary to implement the project;
The activities clearly show how they plan to fill capacity gaps over the course of the project;
They seem to have adequate skills and capacity for the project but do not have experience with GEF projects;
The lead organization and project partners clearly communicate that they have all the skills and experience necessary to implement the project activities. Also, have past experience with GEF funded projects.
Evidence A: The text posits that COICA counts on technical advisors to help them develop and implement the project.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Very limited (no criteria met);
Some capacity but would require support (1/3 criteria);
Moderate capacity (2/3 criteria met);
Very strong (all criteria met) with demonstrated past performance
Evidence A: There is room for improvement.
Evidence B:NA
Scoring:
Answered no;
Answered yes but with weak or lacking explanation to the extent;
Answered yes with clear explanation of the extent
Evidence A: NA
Evidence B:NA